Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5198_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
61 Мб
Скачать
58 Trauma andSurgical Capabilities forSpace Exploration
505
countries. Rural trauma in the United States shows that in distant populations, mortality can be up to 50% greater than urban populations. Trauma in rural populations accounts for 60% of deaths in the United States, despite only 20% of the population reside in these areas [8486].
Crewmembers in orbit are hemodynamically challenged after 72h in a microgravity environment. They have about a 15% decrease in circulating red blood cells and plasma vol­ume. This is dened as a class I hemorrhage terrestrially. Another factor in space physiology that is unique is the blunting of cardiovascular reexes. These combined result in a decreased ability for a crewmember in microgravity to respond to blood loss. This can result in a shortened time in which intervention can have the greatest effect. They imme­diately move into a class II type of hemorrhagic shock. The initial response to trauma must be rapid and consideration to uid resuscitation must be given priority. As we have seen, ATLS procedures can be readily accomplished in the micro­gravity environment [40]. Intravenous access has been dem­onstrated experimentally and aboard the ISS. Securing an airway has also been demonstrated in parabolic ight using endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask insertion, or surgi­cal tracheostomy. A FAST (focused assessment with sonog­raphy for trauma) ultrasound can be utilized to evaluate for traumatic injury as well as conrm the endotracheal tube position [87, 88].
The truncal region requires surgical intervention to con­trol internal bleeding. External pressure is not efcacious to control hemorrhage in this area. Ninety-nine percent of deaths are due to thoracic or abdominal bleeding [89, 90]. Ultrasound has been used to localize intrapleural, intraperi­toneal, and retroperitoneal bleeding terrestrially, in parabolic ight and onboard space vehicles. It is as sensitive as terrestrial- based applications [6973, 91]. Management of these injuries has changed due to rapid diagnostic proce­dures. No longer is explorative surgery required, and it has given way to observation and repeated scanning techniques. This also implies that surgical or intensive monitoring must be available in case there is recurrent hemorrhage. Observation may also be complicated by and require inter­ventions in the cases of abscesses, pseudoaneurysms, urino­mas, or biliomas. Many of these can be treated with percutaneous interventions and have been demonstrated in parabolic as well as actual spaceights [80, 92]. These con­ditions still require surgical expertise if severe recurrent hemorrhage occurs. This would require specialized training and physician intervention [3, 93]. In the space environment, it may be better to intervene in a staged fashion rather than going directly to open procedures. In all of these cases, anes­thetics would be required. Gaseous anesthetics have innu­merable problems in a closed-loop environment. Re-inhalation and intoxication of the ones performing the interventions is a real risk. Also the incorporation of anes-
thetic decontamination equipment into the environmental control system may be space and cost prohibitive [3]. Intravenous anesthetic techniques are preferable and have been demonstrated in parabolic ights.
Immediate Damage Control Procedures
Severe shock and sepsis may demand an immediate surgical intervention before extensive diagnostics can localize the condition. A group of ight surgeons, trauma surgeons, and biomedical engineers emphasized that a laparotomy may be required to stabilize a patient prior to further procedures or deorbiting to Earth [94]. As discussed in Chaps. 30 and 31, the paradigm of only completing the necessary components via limited procedures is referred to as damage control (DC) surgery. These methods do not require prolonged procedures that tax the patient’s physiological reserves. Also these pro­cedures do not require extensive equipment outlays [8, 95]. These procedures are not signicantly different from the ter­restrial environment. Solid-organ bleeding can be tampon­aded with packs around the offending organ. The abdominal wall can be left open for further procedures to follow. An open abdominal wall facilitates converting noncompressible bleeding into compressible visceral bleeding by direct meth­ods. Fibrin glue and tissue sealants can also be used easily in these DC surgeries. These procedures have been demon­strated by physician extenders and non-surgeons [96]. These types of procedures would allow immediate DC surgery to be performed to stabilize the crewmembers’ condition. Then planning and further diagnostics can take place with consul­tation with ground control. Then long-distance training or reviews and simulations can be undertaken to perform a denitive surgical procedure.
Orthopedic injuries lend themselves to damage control procedures. Fixation devices are easy to use and may be the most viable option. Plaster casting requires mixing plaster with water, and this takes up a valuable resource. Fiberglass casting materials produce large amounts of off-gassed prod­ucts that must be accommodated by the environmental con­trol system. These may not be easily removed. Flexible aluminum splints and elastic bandages can be used on the simpler fractures. Numerous fractures require gravity to heal the break or maintain reduction. Manual traction is difcult to apply in microgravity. Another concern is that bone heal­ing is likely to be delayed in spaceight [13, 14]. External xation offers numerous advantages. The techniques for the most part are simple and rapid. They are not physiologically stressing and do not require extensive anesthesia applica­tions. Their application will allow early mobilization, and if placed under tension, they may substitute for gravity and manual traction. US can be used to diagnose and evaluate the reduction [63, 97, 98]. This has been demonstrated in numer-
506
D. J. Alexander
ous studies [99101]. The use of US can also be accom­plished with external xation in place.
Addressing these surgical challenges has led to unique solutions that have been incorporated into terrestrial care [102, 103]. Currently, computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are not done in micro­gravity environments. An MRI is possible as high-power magnets have been incorporated into the ISS particle physics experiments. The AMS-2 superconducting magnet has two coils of niobium-titanium producing a central eld of 0.87 teslas. Numerous investigations are undergoing evaluation in the use of advanced US techniques that could be incorpo­rated in the treatment of critically injured patients. These cover a range of subjects from diagnostic studies to address­ing the crew training in advanced US techniques [47, 71, 82,
104]. The ISS has a US station aboard to conduct clinical and
research efforts in the microgravity environment. The carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) measurement was devel­oped through a direct venture with NASA. CIMT uses the ArterioVision software initially developed at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL). JPL’s Image Processing Laboratory is tasked with the processing and interpretation of spacecraft imagery. NASA-invented Video Imaging Communication and Retrieval software has been used to process pictures from numerous space missions, including the Voyagers and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Periodic upgrades of the imaging software have enabled greater accuracy and improved knowledge of our solar system. ArterioVision is incorporated into a standardized US examination of the carotid artery and produces the CIMT [105].
Crew Medical Ocers
The CMO (crew medical ofcer) onboard the shuttle or ISS is not required to be a physician. They undergo 40–60h of medical training to accomplish specic diagnostic and thera­peutic interventions [106]. This includes a broad area of medical subjects, but they do not have the dedicated surgical expertise that a trained physician possesses. A general sur­geon with specic training in the unique diagnostic and ther­apeutic interventions for a long-duration mission would be ideal. Other critical care or emergency physicians would also be excellent candidates. This mission specialist physician would also have other training in psychological support and
intervention for a long-duration spaceight. Their duties would include nonmedical functions in order to equitably distribute the workload of an extended mission. A caveat to this is that the medical specialist would also have the same physiological changes of microgravity and be susceptible to the same risks as the other crewmembers. Another crew­member will need to have some redundancy in capability. Telemedical support is available currently to the ISS, but will be more difcult as the distances grow larger on interplane­tary missions. Telemedicine and telerobotics research are constantly ongoing to address many gaps in space medicine care [104]. On these interplanetary missions, acute care will need a large amount of autonomy and a large library of medi­cal information available. Just in time computerized training will need to be available. Also procedural simulation pro­grams can be made available to practice and retain skills. Each mission will have to be scrutinized, and specic requirements and personnel assignments will have to be made with the possibility of a critical medical event likely to occur.

Conclusions

There are numerous advantages of low Earth orbit. In deal­ing with trauma, having easy communication access to Mission Control and medical consultation resources offers huge potentials. Another advantage is having the option of deorbiting to more dedicated medical facilities. While initia­tives to go further than the lunar surface are growing in real­ity, the option of an immediate return or easy communication with terrestrial resources diminishes with increasing dis­tance. The International Space Station offers unique oppor­tunities to test interventional procedures in order to provide care to traumatized or surgical patients. Landing on other planetary surfaces also increases the risk or trauma due to falls as well as construction injuries as support structures will need to be erected. All of the exploration activities will require dedicated planning to put in place dedicated trauma treatment equipment and personnel. Training will also need to be robust to cover these contingencies. We are explorers and risk takers. In order to minimize the risk, we must plan and test the future capabilities that will extend our reach beyond our terrestrial bonds.
58 Trauma andSurgical Capabilities forSpace Exploration
Key Points
• Astronauts in microgravity have a decreased stroke volume, reduced circulating blood volume, sup­pressed cellular immunity, and impaired wound healing putting them at increased risk from trauma.
• Surgery in space faces many challenges including providing and maintaining a sterile eld, maintain­ing hemostasis, and preventing contamination of both the surgical eld and the surrounding environment.
• Imaging in space is also limited and currently relies heavily on ultrasound as the main imaging modality.
• The mission specialist physician on long-duration spaceights will face multiple challenges including the performance of nonmedical functions in order to equitably distribute the workload, the need for a broad range of medical knowledge, and the ability to retain a specialized surgical skill set with poten­tially minimal opportunities to practice.

References

1. Wilken DD.Signicant medical experiences aboard Polaris sub­marines: a review of 360 patrols during the period 1963–67, US Naval Submarine Medical Center Report, 560, Groton; 1969.
2. Tansey WA, Wilson JM, Schaefer KE. Analysis of health data from 10 years of Polaris submarine patrols. Undersea Biomed Res. 1979;6(Suppl):S217–46.
3. Kirkpatrick AW, Campbell MR, Novinkov OL, et al. Blunt trauma and operative care in microgravity: a review of micrograv­ity physiology and surgical investigations with implications for critical care and operative treatment in space. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;184:441–53.
4. Kirkpatrick AW, Dulchavsky SA, Boulanger BR, et al. Extraterrestrial resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock: uids. J Trauma. 2001;50:162–8.
5. Charles JB, Lathers CM.Cardiovascular adaptation to spaceight. J Clin Pharmacol. 1991;31:1010–23.
6. Leach CS, Inners LD, Charles JB.Changes in total body water during space ight. J Clin Pharmacol. 1991;31:1001–6.
7. McCuaig KE, Houtchens BA.Management of trauma and emer­gency surgery in space. J Trauma. 1992;33:615–25.
8. Burch JM, Ortiz JB, Richardson J, etal. Abbreviated laparotomy and planned reoperation for critically ill patients. Ann Surg. 1992;215:476–83.
9. Buckey JC.Space physiology, Effect of spaceight on the car­diovascular system. NewYork: Oxford University Press; 2006. p.149–54.
10. Kirkpatrick AW, Campbell MR, Broderick T, etal. Extraterrestrial hemorrhage control: terrestrial developments in technique, tech­nology, and philosophy with applicability to traumatic hemor­rhage control during long duration spaceight. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:64–76.
11. Kirkpatrick AW, Ball CG, Campbell M, Williams DR, Parazynski SE, Mattox KL, Broderick TJ.Severe traumatic injury during long
507
duration spaceight: light years beyond ATLS.J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2009;3:4.
12. Williams D, Kuipers A, Mukai C, Thirsk R. Acclimation during space ight: effects on human physiology. CMAJ. 2009;180(13):1317–23.
13. Davidson JM, Aquino AM, Woodward SC, et al. Sustained microgravity reduces intrinsic wound healing and growth factor response in the rat. FASEB J. 1999;13:325–9.
14. Nicogossian AE, Sawin CF, Huntoon CL. Overall physiologic response to spaceight. In: Nicogossian AE, Huntoon CL, Pool SL, editors. Space physiology and medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1993. p.213–27.
15. Buckey JC.Bone loss: managing calcium and bone loss in space. In: Barratt MR, Pool SL, editors. Space physiology. NewYork: Oxford University Press; 2006. p.5–21.
16. Shackelford LC.Principles of clinical medicine for space ight, Musculoskeletal response to space ight. New York: Springer Science and Business Media; 2008. p.293–306.
17. Cann C. Response of the skeletal system to spaceight. In: Churchill SE, editor. Fundamentals of space lifesciences, vol. 1. Malabar: Krieger Publishing Company; 1997. p.83–103.
18. Tafton PG, McGough RL.Lower extremity fractures and disloca­tions. In: Moore EE, Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, editors. Trauma. NewYork: McGraw-Hill; 2004. p.939–68.
19. Kaplansky A, Durnova G, Burkovskya T, et al. The effect of microgravity o bone fracture healing in rats own on Cosmos
2044. Physiologist. 1991;34:325–9.
20. Taylor G, Janney R. In vivo testing conrms a blunting of the human cell-mediated immune mechanism during spaceight. J Leukoc Biol. 1992;48:129–32.
21. Kacena MA, Merrell GA, Manfredi B, etal. Bacterial growth in space ight: logistic growth curve parameters for Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1999;51:229–34.
22. Iaroshenko GL, Terent’ev VG, Mokrov MN.Peculiarities of sur­gical intervention under conditions of weightlessness. Voen Med Zh. 1967;10:69–70.
23. Musgrave S. Surgical aspects of space ight. Surg Annu. 1976;8:1–23.
24. Stazhadze LL, Goncharov IB, Neumyzakin IP, etal. Anaesthesia, surgical aid and resuscitation in manned space missions. Acta Astronaut. 1981;8:1109–13.
25. Campbell MR, Billica RD, Johnston SL.Animal surgery in micro­gravity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1993;64:58–62.
26. Campbell MR, Billica RD, Johnston SL. Surgical bleeding in microgravity. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;177:121–5.
27. McCuaig K. Aseptic technique in microgravity. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992;175:466–47.
28. McCuaig K. Surgical problems in space: an overview. J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;34:513–7.
29. Campbell MR, Billica RD, Melton S.Surgical instrument restraint in weightlessness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2001;72:871–6.
30. McCuaig K, Lloyd C, Gosbee J, etal. Simulation of blood ow in microgravity. Am J Surg. 1992;164:114–23.
31. Barratt MR, Pool SL, etal. Chapter 15, Immunolgic concerns. In: Principles of clinical medicine for space ight. Springer Science + Business Media; 2008. p.307–31.
32. Campbell MR, Billica RD. A review of microgravity surgical investigations. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1992;63(6):52.
33. Mutke HG.Equipment for surgical intervention and childbirth in weightlessness. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1981;8:399–403.
34. Rock J.An expandable surgical chamber for use in a weightless environment. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1984;55:403–4.
35. Markham SM, Rock JA.Deploying and testing an expandable surgical chamber in microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1989;60:76–9.
508
D. J. Alexander
36. Markham SM, Rock JA.Microgravity testing of a surgical iso­lation containment system for space station use. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1991;62:691–3.
37. Bennett TE, Pantalos GM, Sharp MK, Schurfranz T, Everett S, Gillars K, O'Leary S, Lorange R, Woodruff S, Lemon M, Sojka J.Effect of gravitational acceleration on cardiac diastolic func­tion: the hearts in space project, 1985 to 1999. NASA Conference Publication NASA/CP-1999-209476, Daelemans G, Mosier F, editors, p.97–106; 1999.
38. Jay GD, Lee P, Goldsmith H, Battat J, Maurer J, Suner S.CPR effectiveness in microgravity: comparison of three posi­tions and a mechanical device. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003;74(11):1183–9.
39. CAPT Zach Perkins, CPR in micro-gravity environments. http://
hypospray.thedocnetwork.net/?p=40.
40. Campbell MR, Billica RD, Johnston SL, Muller MS.Performance of advanced trauma life support procedures in microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73(9):907–12.
41. Schweitzer EJ, Hauer JM, Swan KG, et al. Use of the Heimlich valve in a compact autotransfusion device. J Trauma. 1987;27:537–42.
42. Mattox KL, Walker LE, Beall AC, etal. Blood availability for the trauma patient—Autotransfusion. J Trauma. 1975;15(8):663–9.
43. Rumisek JD.Autotransfusion of shed blood: an untapped battle­eld resource. Mil Med. 1982;147:193–6.
44. Kirkpatrick AW, Doarn CR, Campbell MR, Barnes SL, Broderick TJ. Manual suturing quality at acceleration levels equivalent to spaceight and a lunar base. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2008;79:1065–6.
45. Campbell MR, Williams DR, Buckey JC Jr, Kirkpatrick AW.Animal surgery during spaceight on the Neurolab Shuttle mission. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005;76:589–93.
46. Jones JA, Johnston S, Campbell M, Miles B, Billica R.Endoscopic surgery and telemedicine in microgravity: developing contin­gency procedures for exploratory class spaceight. Urology. 1999;53:892–7.
47. Campbell MR, Kirkpatrick AW, Billica RD, Johnston SL, Jennings R, Short D, Hamilton D, Dulchavsky SA.Endoscopic surgery in weightlessness: the investigation of basic principles for surgery in space. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:1413–8.
48. Pinsolle V, Martin D, de Coninck L, Techoueyres P, Vaida P. Microsurgery in microgravity is possible. Microsurgery. 2005;25:152–4.
49. Panait L, Merrell RC, Raq A, Dudrick SJ, Broderick TJ.Virtual reality laparoscopic skill assessment in microgravity. J Surg Res. 2006;136:198–203.
50. Campbell MR, Billica RD, Jennings R, Johnston S 3rd. Laparoscopic surgery in weightlessness. Surg Endosc. 1996;10:111–7.
51. Broderick TJ, Privitera MB, Parazynski SE, et al. Simulated hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in microgravity. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2005;15:145–8.
52. Raq A, Broderick TJ, Williams DR, etal. Assessment of simu­lated surgical skills in parabolic ight. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005;76:385–91.
53. Boffard KD, editor. Manual of denitive surgical trauma care, Minimally invasive surgery in trauma. London: Hodder Headline Group; 2003. p.172–3.
54. Leppaniemi A, Haapiainen R.Diagnostic laparoscopy in abdomi­nal stab wounds: a prospective, randomized study. J Trauma. 2003;55:636–45.
55. Burch JM, Moore EE, Moore FA, etal. The abdominal compart­ment syndrome. Surg Clin N Am. 1996;76:833–42.
56. Kirkpatrick AW, Balogh Z, Ball CG, etal. The secondary abdomi­nal compartment syndrome: Iatrogenic or unavoidable? J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202:668–79.
57. Schein M, Wittman DH, Aprahamian CC, etal. The abdominal compartment syndrome: the physiological and clinical conse­quences of elevated intra-abdominal pressure. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:745–52.
58. Kirkpatrick AW, Broderick T, Ball C, etal. Implications regard­ing the abdominal compartment syndrome in space. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:A5–A60.
59. Holthausen UH, Nagelschmidt M, Troidl H.CO2 pneumoperito­neum: what we know and what we need to know. World J Surg. 1999;23:794–800.
60. Kirkpatrick AW, Keaney DVM, Kmet L, etal. Intra-abdominal pressure effects on porcine thoracic compliance in weightlessness: implications for physiologic tolerance of laparoscopic surgery in space. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:591–7.
61. Holcomb JB, McClain JM, Pusateri AE, etal. Fibrin sealant foam sprayed directly on liver injuries decreases blood loss in resusci­tated rats. J Trauma. 2000;49:246–50.
62. Gunn J, Fehrenbacher P. Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois presentation at the NASA Human Research Program Investigators’ Workshop 2014.
63. Taeger G, Ruchholtz S, Waydas C, etal. Damage control orthope­dics in patients with multiple injuries is effective, time saving, and safe. J Trauma. 2005;59:408–15.
64. Perchinsky MJ, Long WB, Hill JG, et al. Extracorporeal car­diopulmonary life support with heparin bonded circuitry in the resuscitation of massively injured trauma patients. Am J Surg. 1995;169:488–91.
65. Vucevic M, Tehan B, Gamlin F, etal. The SMART needle: a new Doppler ultrasound-guided vascular access needle. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:889–91.
66. Yaffe L, Abbott D, Schulte B.Smart aortic arch catheter: moving suspended animation from the laboratory to the eld. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:S51–5.
67. Amiko Nevills NEEMO: NASA extreme environment mission operations report; 2006.
68. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Rubino F, et al. Transcontinental robot­assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications. Ann Surg. 2002;235:487–92.
69. Kirkpatrick AW, Jones JA, Sargsyan A, Hamilton DR, Melton S, Beck G, Nicolau S, Campbell M, Dulchavsky S. Trauma sonography for use in microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007;78:A38–42.
70. Kirkpatrick AW, Hamilton DR, Nicolaou S, Sargsyan AE, Campbell MR, Feiveson A, Dulchavsky SA, Melton S, Beck G, Dawson DL. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma in weightlessness: a feasibility study. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:833–44.
71. Sargsyan AE, Hamilton DR, Jones JA, Melton S, Whitson PA, Kirkpatrick AW, Martin D, Dulchavsky SA. FAST at MACH 20: clinical ultrasound aboard the International Space Station. J Trauma. 2005;58:35–9.
72. Hamilton DR, Sargsyan AE, Kirkpatrick AW, Nicolaou S, Campbell M, Dawson DL, Melton SL, Beck G, Guess T, Rasbury J, Dulchavsky SA. Sonographic detection of pneumothorax and hemothorax in microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75:272–7.
73. Sargsyan AE, Karakitsos D.Ultrasound imaging in space ight. In: Lumb, Karakitsos, editors. Critical care ultrasound. Elsevier;
2014. p.258–62.
74. Sargsyan AE, Hamilton DR, Nicolaou S, Kirkpatrick AW, Campbell MR, Billica RD, Dawson D, Williams DR, Melton SL, Beck G, Forkheim K, Dulchavsky SA.Ultrasound evalua­tion of the magnitude of pneumothorax: a new concept. Am Surg. 2001;67:232–5. Discussion pp235–6
75. Benninger MS, McFarlin K, Hamilton DR, Rubinfeld I, Sargsyan AE, Melton SM, Mohyi M, Dulchavsky SA.Ultrasound evalua-
58 Trauma andSurgical Capabilities forSpace Exploration
509
tion of sinus uid levels in swine during microgravity conditions. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2009;80:1063–5.
76. Riccabona M, Nelson TR, Pretorius DH. Three-dimensional ultrasound: accuracy of distance and volume measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;7:429–34.
77. Shalev J, Davidi O, Fisch B.Quantitative three-dimensional sono­graphic assessment of pelvic blood after transvaginal ultrasound­guided oocyte aspiration: factors predicting risk. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23(2):177–82.
78. Catalano O, Cusati B, Nunziata A, et al. Active abdominal bleeding: contrast-enhanced sonography. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31:9–16.
79. Hoyt DB. A clinical review of bleeding dilemmas in trauma. Semin Hematol. 2004;41:S40–3.
80. Kirkpatrick AW, Nicolaou S, Campbell MR, Sargsyan AE, Dulchavsky SA, Melton S, Beck G, Dawson DL, Billica RD, Johnston SL, Hamilton DR.Percutaneous aspiration of uid for management of peritonitis in space. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002;73:925–30.
81. Fincke EM, Padalka G, Lee D, van Holsbeeck M, Sargsyan AE, Hamilton DR, Martin D, Melton SL, McFarlin K, Dulchavsky SA.Evaluation of shoulder integrity in space: rst report of mus­culoskeletal US on the International Space Station. Radiology. 2005;234:319–22.
82. Chiao L, Sharipov S, Sargsyan AE, Melton S, Hamilton DR, McFarlin K, Dulchavsky SA. Ocular examination for trauma; clinical ultrasound aboard the International Space Station. J Trauma. 2005;58:885–9.
83. Simon JC, Sapozhnikov OA, Khokhlova VA, Wang Y-N, Crum LA, Bailey MR, Ultrasonic atomization of tissue: a mechanism for ultrasound-based surgery—presentation at the NASA Human Research Program Investigators’ Workshop 2014, NIH grants DK43881, EB007643 and NSBRI through NASA NCC 9–58.
84. Grossman DC, Kim A, MacDonald SC, et al. Urban-rural differences in prehospital care of major trauma. J Trauma. 1997;42:723–9.
85. Mueller BA, Rivara FP, Bergman AB.Urban-rural location and the risk of dying in a pedestrian-vehicle collision. J Trauma. 1988;28:91–4.
86. Sampalis JS, Denis R, Fréchette P, Brown R, Fleiszer D, Mulder D.Direct transport to tertiary trauma centers versus transfer from lower level facilities: impact on mortality and morbidity among patients with major trauma. J Trauma. 1997;43(2):288–95.
87. Chun R, Kirkpatrick AW, Sirois M, et al. Where’s the tube? Evaluation of hand-held ultrasound in conrming endotracheal tube placement. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2004;19:366–9.
88. Weaver B, Lyon M, Blaivas M.Conrmation of endotracheal tube placement after intubation using the ultrasound sliding lung sign. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13:239–44.
89. Martinowitz U, Holcomb JB, Pusateri AE, et al. Intravenous rFVIIa administered for hemorrhage control in hypothermic coagulopathic swine with grade V liver injuries. J Trauma. 2001;50:721–9.
90. Hoyt DB, Bulger EM, Knudson MM, etal. Death in the oper­ating room: an analysis of a multi-center experience. J Trauma. 1994;37:426–32.
91. Melton S, Beck G, Hamilton D, etal. How to test a medical tech­nology for space: trauma sonography in microgravity. McGill J Med. 2001;6:66–73.
92. Demetriades D, Velmahos G.Technology-driven triage of abdom­inal trauma: the emerging era of nonoperative management. Annu Rev Med. 2003;54:1–15.
93. Hiatt JR, Harrier HD, Koenig BV, et al. Nonoperative manage­ment of major blunt liver injury with hemoperitoneum. Arch Surg. 1990;125:101–3.
94. Houtchens B.System for the management of trauma and emer­gency surgery in space: nal report. NASA Johnson Space Center NASA Grant NASW-3744 Houston.
95. Holcomb JB, Helling TS, Hirshberg A. Military, civilian, and rural application of the damage control philosophy. Mil Med. 2001;166:490–3.
96. Tisherman SA, Vandevelde K, Safar P, etal. Future directions for resuscitation research: ultra-advanced life support. Resuscitation. 1997;34:281–93.
97. Harwood PJ, Giannoudis PV, van Griensven M, etal. Alterations in the systemic inammatory response after early total care and damage control procedures for femoral shaft fracture in severely injured patients. J Trauma. 2005;58:446–54.
98. Scalea TM, Boswell SA, Scott JD, etal. External xation as a bridge to intramedullary nailing for patients with multiple injuries and with femur fractures: damage control orthopedics. J Trauma. 2000;48:613–23.
99. Dulchavsky SA, Henry SE, Moed BR, et al. Advanced ultra­sonic diagnosis of extremity trauma: the FASTER examination. J Trauma. 2002;53:28–32.
100. Kirkpatrick AW, Brown R, Diebel LN, etal. Rapid diagnosis of an ulnar fracture with portable hand-held ultrasound. Mil Med. 2003;168:312–3.
101. Noble VE, Legome E, Marshburn T.Long bone ultrasound: mak­ing the diagnosis in remote locations. J Trauma. 2003;54:800.
102. Grigorev AI, Bugrov SA, Bogomolov VV, Egorov AD, Kozlovskaya IB, Pestov ID, Polyakov VV, Tarasov IK.Medicine on Mars. UTMB Center for Aerospace Medicine; 2007.
103. Husted TL, Broderick TJ. NASA Medical results of the MIR year-long mission. Course syllabus: pushing the envelope II. and the emergence of new surgical technologies. J Surg Res. 2006;132:13–6.
104. Foale CM, Kaleri AY, Sargsyan AE, etal. Diagnostic instrumen­tation aboard ISS; just-in-time training for non-physician crew­members. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005;76:594–8.
105. NASA technology helps detect heart disease and strokes. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. California Institute of Technology [Internet] June 6, 2006. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.
php?release=2007- 063.
106. Campbell MR.A review of surgical care in space. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194:802–12.
Logistical Transformation ofHealthcare Systems intheCOVID-19 Era
JaarA.Al-Tawq andZiadA.Memish
59

Introduction

Pandemics are characterized as being low-chance but high­impact events [1]. In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of three coronaviruses. These are the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) detected in 2002in Guangdong Province, China [2, 3]. The disease caused 8096 cases and 774 (9.6%) deaths over a four-month period from late 2002 to early 2003 [4]. SARS cases were detected in Vietnam, Hong Kong, Canada, the United States, Ireland, Vietnam, and Singapore [2, 512], and all cases were linked to a patient who stayed in Hotel M in Hong Kong [13]. And 10 years later, a novel coronavirus was isolated from a patient in Saudi Arabia [14, 15] which was later named the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) [16].
The third coronavirus is the severe acute respiratory syn­drome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is genetically similar to SARS-CoV [17]. Initial cases were rst described in a cluster of patients identied in December 2019in Wuhan City, China. The initial cases were felt to be secondary to the animal-human interaction, and subsequently, cases were the result of community transmission [17, 18]. After the initial cluster of cases was identied, several studies demonstrated human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through
either droplets or direct contact [19]. Subsequent cases occurred among travelers from China and those caused local transmission in almost every country around the globe [20,
21].
The Need forHealthcare Transformation
The need for healthcare transformation is well recognized and emerged from the need to provide adequate and quality healthcare to the patients. In previous studies in the United States and without any stressful pandemics, only 55% (95% CI: 54.3–55.5%) of adult patients received the recommended care they needed [22]. The need for technology to change the healthcare system had been recognized and was put in place to drive such changes. In addition, it was suggested that it is important to improve quality of care, decrease costs, and build strategies across the continuum of care [23]. Of the key components of transformation of healthcare are timing and integral map that brings together the process of integration of various components of behavior, social determinants, cul­ture, and personal domains [24]. There is no better time to drive such transformation than the time of the COVID-19 pandemic [24].
J. A. Al-Tawq Specialty Internal Medicine and Quality Department, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana, IN, USA Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
Baltimore, MD, USA e-mail: jaffar.tawq@jhah.com
Z. A. Memish (*) King Saud Medical City, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Al-Faisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public
Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 L. Marshall Gillman, S. Widder (eds.), Trauma Team Dynamics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86312-7_59
Is COVID-19 anAccelerator ofor aGame Changer inHealthcare?
Looking at the changes around the globe and specically in the healthcare system during the COVID-19, it is thought that COVID-19 was the cause for many of the changes. However, others had thought that COVID-19 is an accelera­tor of these changes that were to happen regardless of the occurrence of COVID-19. An example of these changes is the use of telemedicine and telehealth (Fig.59.1).
511
512
TechnologyTelemedicine
Time
Changer
Tele-health
Fig. 59.1 COVID-19 time changer or an accelerator
Person
centered
technology
Accelerator

Pandemic Impact

Previous coronaviruses had caused signicant impact on the healthcare systems [25, 26]. In addition, the pandemic has shown many disparities not only in outcome but also in care delivery among affected population [27]. The emergence of COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a global disruption in healthcare infrastructure with signicant increase in demand on healthcare to care for the increasing surge of COVID-19 patients and maintaining the needed routine healthcare for non-COVID-19 patients and protecting healthcare workers and other patients [2830]. There have been multiple interventions to atten the curve and spare the healthcare system. The lessons we learned from previous pandemics were numerous. However, the current COVID-19 pandemic is of particular importance due to the rapid and persistent increased burden on healthcare organizations and the lack of extra supplies needed to manage it on a global level. All healthcare systems around the globe had to rapidly adopt alternative options for dealing with COVID-19 and non­COVID- 19 cases.
The emergence of COVID-19 necessitated the prevention of the spread of infections in healthcare facilities by relying on the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) strategies of hierarchy of infection pre­vention and controls [28, 31]. COVID-19 pandemic raised the question about resilience of healthcare systems globally. It is important that we look beyond the current crisis, build on the capacity of healthcare systems to better prepare for future outbreaks and pandemics, identify building blocks of resilient health, and explore ways to build capacity and the ability to maintain healthcare provision for non-COVID- 19­related concerns. Many organizations had to also expand the capacity for many activities such as intensive care units, quarantine, isolation, and satellite clinics [32, 33]. Countries around the globe have either used the SARS paradigm or the
J. A. Al-Tawq and Z. A. Memish
inuenza paradigm in dealing with COVID-19 [34]. The SARS paradigm concentrated on eliminating infections, dis­ease surveillance, redesigning of healthcare facilities, and reducing cross-infection. The inuenza paradigm however is based on acceptance that COVID-19 would ultimately spread through the population and that little if any could be done to control the disease [34].
The emergence of COVID-19 tested healthcare organiza­tions for resilience by the ability to absorb the shock of COVID-19, respond effectively, adapt to the shock, change the structure of the organizations, and sustain day-to-day operations. These are the fundamentals of any resilient orga­nization [34]. In order for healthcare organizations to respond to COVID-19 and any future pandemics, they must ensure enough medical supplies, availability of workforce, having additional needed nancial support, abilities to deal with non-COVID-19-related issues (e.g., chronic medical condi­tions, cardiac cases, hemodialysis, and cancer care) [28], and utilizing digital solutions and other innovations to monitor and manage non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients.
Empowering Factors forIncreasing Organization’s Capacity forImprovisation
There is the need to have organizations increase their impro­visation through increasing autonomy, more exibility, fast decision-making, and preserving structure with clear lines of communication and coordination. Rather than materializing “out of thin air,” improvisation comes from adjustments and recombination of already existing resources to maintain some structure [35]. For any organization to have a shared understanding, especially of the way to deal with any pan­demic, it is important to be fully aware of the interdepen­dence on others, the need to have a holistic awareness of the pandemic and the rapidity of the change, and have excellent communication channels in order to share information in a timely manner [36].
Shortage inManpower andPPEs/ Disinfectant
The emergence of COVID-19 had transformed the health­care system across the globe [37, 38]. It is noted that there is an international, national, and regional shortage of personal protective equipment [39, 40]. The concern is confounded by the fact that hospital administrators and managers prohibit healthcare workers from discussing these issues openly or raising the ag [41]. In a study from Saudi Arabia, about one-third of respondents to questionnaires reported shortage of PPE [42]. Another factor contributing to the shortage of PPE is inappropriate use and wastage of PPE [43]. This
59 Logistical Transformation ofHealthcare Systems intheCOVID-19 Era
513
shortage is mainly for single-use PPE which is not designed for reprocessing [44]. Thus, healthcare organizations devel­oped multiple strategies to deal with this shortage including custom-made production and sterilization or high-level dis­infection for PPE reprocessing utilizing hydrogen peroxide vapor or ultraviolet C waves [44]. However, manufacturers may not recommend the disinfection or sterilization of respi­rators [44]. It was also noted that highly energetic ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) was effective for the reuse of respirators [45]. Others had used face shields to provide cov­erage of the respirators and extended the use of such respira­tors. There was clear disruption of the supply across the globe. China is the supplier of about 50% of surgical masks and the only place that has the capacity of mass production of clinical gowns [46]. On the other hand the United States is the largest market for the use of PPE, and the acute increase in the demand had contributed to the shortage [38]. To address these issues, there is a global need to have extended, reusable, and recyclable PPE [47].
Isolation andQuarantine
The COVID-19 pandemic had caused an urgent demand for isolation rooms to isolate and quarantine individuals who have infection or those who are suspected of being infected for the duration of the incubation period. Quarantine origi­nates from the Latin quadragina and the Italian quaranta which denotes 40. This refers to the time when sailors had to be managed offshore in their ships for 40days before being allowed to get into the cities at the time of plague [48]. This practice was used also during the previous coronaviruses outbreaks. During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak, many governments cre­ated quarantine facilities for those needing quarantine such as close contacts and travelers [48]. In addition, during SARS and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak, healthcare workers were quarantined after exposure [49, 50]. During COVID-19 pandemic, there had been multiple facilities created around the globe to accommodate especially returning travelers for quarantine [33, 51].
Telehealth andTelemedicine
It is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic had changed the way healthcare workers had dealt with long-practiced medi­cal therapies [28] such that patients with acute coronary syn­drome were prioritized to receive nonsurgical interventions such as thrombolytic therapy [52]. Telemedicine had become increasingly utilized in many services such as 35% of uro­logic consultations [53]. Such visits allow healthcare staff to
assess the clinical progress of the patients, response to ther­apy, and adjust or rell medications [28].
Although telemedicine, telehealth, and e-health are used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference between these terms [5456]. Telehealth encompasses telemedicine and uti­lizes any telecommunication tools such as texting, messag­ing, phone calls, e-mails, or other communication portals allowing patient-to-provider communication. On the other hand, telemedicine is a narrower term and refers to the use of videoconferencing and remote patient monitoring. The term e-health is being used to indicate data processing and com­puter applications. It seems that telemedicine is the most commonly used terminology since the early 1990s, followed by e-health, and the least used terminology is telehealth [54]. Despite the adaptation of telemedicine, there are several chal­lenges that need to be kept in mind. These challenges include availability of infrastructure, access, operational, regulatory, communication, and legislative issues [57]. Of course, tele­medicine poses opportunities and has its own challenges that need further evaluation to ensure better utilization [58].
Leadership During theCOVID-19 Pandemic
The leadership style and activities during the COVID-19 pandemic had to adapt to making tough decisions without clear and solid data, go beyond the unknown, communicate effectively, integrate different activities and different hospi­tals, and deal with patient cohorting and staff shortages (Fig.59.2). The initial events of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with lots of uncertainties and rapidly chang­ing information. These uncertainties dictate that leaders make decisions with less information and thus these deci­sions might not be optimal. These uncertainties many times touch the basic needs of individuals to feel safe. Many healthcare workers may act strangely and may not follow appropriate infection control measures due to fear. Leaders need to be equipped to move people from fear to actions to deal with the situation that might be full of emotions and irrational actions. Leaders need to change these situations from fear to positive situations, to practice creative abandon­ment, and to communicate clear directions, actions, values, and behaviors. This strategy allows actions to be gauged and redirected to the best solution rather than not doing anything. Leaders have to “Be First, Be Right, and Be Credible” in their communications [59]. The communication has to be up, down, and across for effective leadership [60]: upward com­munication to ofcials and governmental agencies, commu­nicating down to staff and the community, and communicating across to peers and other organizations [60]. However, such leadership might be further challenged by the need to work from home adding an additional factor and a burden in com­munication and management [61].
514
Fig. 59.2 A simplied diagram of different activities leaders of healthcare organizations dealt with during the COVID-19 pandemic
J. A. Al-Tawq and Z. A. Memish
Tough Decisions
Paents and
Staff
Management
Financial
Stability and
growth
Integraon
Leadership
Strategy
Dealing with
Unkowns
Communicaon
Stakeholders,
customers,
regulators

Financial Support

One of the most needed transformations in healthcare is to have nancial support for the care of the patients, innovation, maintaining research, and providing care for patients [37]. There were increasing demands on emergency room visits and laboratory tests for COVID-19 with reduction in routine surgical procedures and routine blood tests at the time of the pandemic [62, 63]. The rapid evolution of the pandemic had forced many healthcare organizations around the globe to put and spend extra-nancial activities to maintain the needed healthcare. The need to have enhanced partnerships with governmental and private sectors for the development
of medications, vaccines, and diagnostic tests is fundamental in the ght against this pandemic [37, 64].

Conclusion

The current COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a major inu­ence on healthcare organizations. This impact had acceler­ated the transformation of healthcare and impacted the designs of hospitals to manage large inux of patients and care for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Healthcare organizations should be in a better position to respond to future challenges and emergencies including pandemics.
59 Logistical Transformation ofHealthcare Systems intheCOVID-19 Era
Key Points
• Pandemics are characterized as being low-chance but high-impact events.
• The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a global dis­ruption in healthcare infrastructure.
• The COVID-19 pandemic caused an urgent demand to isolate and quarantine individuals.
• Healthcare transformation is driven by need for quality care.
• Integration of behavior, social determinants, cul­ture, and personal domains is needed for the trans­formation of healthcare.
• COVID-19 is an accelerator of healthcare transfor­mation including telemedicine, telehealth, and e-health.
• Organizations need more autonomy, exibility, and fast decision-making.
• Shortage in manpower and PPEs/disinfectant had a signicant impact.
• Leadership adapting to tough decisions and uncertainties.
• Financial support is needed for patient care, innova­tion, and research.

References

1. Lloyd-Smith M.The COVID-19 pandemic: resilient organisational response to a low-chance, high-impact event. BMJ Lead [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 16];4(3):109–12. Available from: http://
bmjleader.bmj.com/.
2. Lee N, Hui D, Wu A, Chan P, Cameron P, Joynt GM, etal. A major outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(20):1986–94.
3. Shaw K. The 2003 SARS outbreak and its impact on infection control practices. Public Health [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2018 Feb 3];120(1):8–14. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/16297415.
4. Graham RL, Baric RS.Recombination, reservoirs, and the modu­lar spike: mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission. J Virol. 2010;84(7):3134–46.
5. Leung GM, Hedley AJ, Ho L-M, Chau P, Wong IOL, Thach TQ, etal. The epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome in the 2003 Hong Kong epidemic: an analysis of all 1755 patients. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2016 Apr 8];141(9):662–73. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15520422.
6. Tsang KW, Ho PL, Ooi GC, Yee WK, Wang T, Chan-Yeung M, etal. A cluster of cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(20):1977–85.
7. Poutanen SM, Low DE, Henry B, Finkelstein S, Rose D, Green K, et al. Identication of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Canada. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2017 Jan 18];348(20):1995–2005. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/12671061.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome—worldwide, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2019 Oct
515
12];52(11):226–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/12665115.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preliminary clinical description of severe acute respiratory syndrome. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2019 Oct 12];52(12):255–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/12680522.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: severe acute respiratory syndrome—United States, June 4, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2019 Oct 12];52(22):525–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/12803200.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus testing—United States, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2019 Oct 12];52(14):297–302. Available from: http://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12731699.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Severe acute respiratory syndrome—Singapore, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2019 Oct 12];52(18):405–11. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12807088.
13. Parashar UD, Anderson LJ.Severe acute respiratory syndrome: review and lessons of the 2003 outbreak. Int J Epidemiol [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2019 Oct 12];33(4):628–34. Available from: http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15155694.
14. Zaki AM, van Boheemen S, Bestebroer TM, Osterhaus ADME, Fouchier RAM.Isolation of a novel coronavirus from a man with pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2016 Jan 17];367(19):1814–20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23075143.
15. Corman VM, Eckerle I, Bleicker T, Zaki A, Landt O, Eschbach­Bludau M, etal. Detection of a novel human coronavirus by real­time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Euro Surveill [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2019 May 10];17(39). Available from: http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23041020.
16. de Groot RJ, Baker SC, Baric RS, Brown CS, Drosten C, Enjuanes L, et al. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS­CoV): announcement of the Coronavirus Study Group. J Virol [Internet]. 2013;87(14):7790–2. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3700179/pdf/zjv7790.pdf.
17. Guan W, Ni Z, Hu Y, Liang W, Ou C, He J, etal. Clinical char­acteristics of coronavirus disease 2019in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1708–20.
18. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 17];6736(20):1–9. Available from: http://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32171076.
19. Lai CC, Shih TP, Ko WC, Tang HJ, Hsueh PR.Severe acute respi­ratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): the epidemic and the challenges. Int J Antimicrob Agents. Elsevier B.V. 2020;55:105924.
20. Zhao D, Yao F, Wang L, Zheng L, Gao Y, Ye J, etal. A compara­tive study on the clinical features of coronavirus 2019 (COVID- 19) pneumonia with other pneumonias. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 May 25];71(15):756–61. Available from: https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32161968/?from_single_result=10.1093 %2Fcid%2Fciaa247&expanded_search_query=10.1093%2Fcid% 2Fciaa247.
21. Peeri NC, Shrestha N, Rahman MS, Zaki R, Tan Z, Bibi S, etal. The SARS, MERS and novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemics, the newest and biggest global health threats: what lessons have we learned? Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(3):717–26.
22. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2021 Apr